Chamber
Plenary, 15 May 2008
15 May 2008 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Free Personal Care
I congratulate Ross Finnie on his thorough and logical analysis of the issue and support the Liberal Democrat amendment. As those who recall my question to the cabinet secretary when she made her statement will not be surprised to learn, I am also very sympathetic to the Conservative amendment, especially given that one of the eight offending councils—Scottish Borders Council—is in my own patch. However, I do not wish to make a party-political issue out of this, because the council administrations that are still charging for food preparation are of various political hues.
As soon as the cabinet secretary made her statement on receipt of Lord Sutherland's report, I gave Scottish Borders Council the opportunity to remedy the situation and to stop charging for food preparation. I have tried to contact the council again on the matter; unless its silence is an indication that the situation has changed, it remains one of the offending eight councils. That said, I am concerned that if repayments for all moneys so levied were to be recouped immediately, councils would raid other coffers, given that their funding settlement has already been set.
The fact is that, if 24 councils are not charging for food preparation, someone must be in the wrong. In 2006, when the previous Health Committee was conducting its free personal care inquiry, half of the councils in Scotland were levying this charge. Since the committee's report, that number has fallen and we are now left with the penny-pinching and recalcitrant councils that I have mentioned. Those councils are dancing on the head of a pin and are not acting in the spirit of the legislation. The explanation that was put forward to the Health Committee was that
"There is a difference between the preparation of food and assistance with eating food. If we aggregate the preparation, it becomes a volume of work that has cost implications."—[Official Report, Health Committee, 7 February 2006; c 2553.]
It was always about trying to cut costs. However, the guidance at that time, before the review, referred to
"Assistance with eating and assistance with special diets. Assistance to manage different types of meal services. Assistance with preparation of food."
That was all to come under free personal and nursing care. It is as plain as a pikestaff.
As for back-payments, it might be useful for those who are affected in the Borders and elsewhere to consider taking legal action through, say, a man or woman of straw. If that is successful, reimbursement might be payable through the councils' insurance cover, thus protecting public funds. That is just a thought.
I point out to Ms Curran that the level of payment for free personal care was not raised until this Government came to power.
On the Labour Party's amendment, I object to Margaret Curran saying that the Scottish National Party's tone is wrong—I read in the papers that she accuses us of "narrow-minded disputes". I find Labour's turnaround to be depressing but predictable. I feel sorry for the Labour Party in Scotland because it is not free; every time it tries to break free, it is pulled back. Margaret Curran stated in The Courier on 28 April that the Sutherland report
"raises vital issues for the future of free personal and nursing care for the elderly in Scotland. Labour fully accepts the conclusions of the report and its recommendations."
Her statement that
"Labour fully accepts the conclusions of the report and its recommendations"
was repeated in The Herald on 29 April.
So what was one of the recommendations? Recommendation 7 states:
"The UK Government should not have withdrawn the Attendance Allowance funding in respect of self-funding clients in care homes, currently amounting to £30 million a year. That funding should be reinstated in the short-term while longer-term work to re-assess funding streams takes place."
The cabinet secretary referred to that. Forgive me but, to me, that is plain English and in any court of law it would be case proved.
As soon as the cabinet secretary made her statement on receipt of Lord Sutherland's report, I gave Scottish Borders Council the opportunity to remedy the situation and to stop charging for food preparation. I have tried to contact the council again on the matter; unless its silence is an indication that the situation has changed, it remains one of the offending eight councils. That said, I am concerned that if repayments for all moneys so levied were to be recouped immediately, councils would raid other coffers, given that their funding settlement has already been set.
The fact is that, if 24 councils are not charging for food preparation, someone must be in the wrong. In 2006, when the previous Health Committee was conducting its free personal care inquiry, half of the councils in Scotland were levying this charge. Since the committee's report, that number has fallen and we are now left with the penny-pinching and recalcitrant councils that I have mentioned. Those councils are dancing on the head of a pin and are not acting in the spirit of the legislation. The explanation that was put forward to the Health Committee was that
"There is a difference between the preparation of food and assistance with eating food. If we aggregate the preparation, it becomes a volume of work that has cost implications."—[Official Report, Health Committee, 7 February 2006; c 2553.]
It was always about trying to cut costs. However, the guidance at that time, before the review, referred to
"Assistance with eating and assistance with special diets. Assistance to manage different types of meal services. Assistance with preparation of food."
That was all to come under free personal and nursing care. It is as plain as a pikestaff.
As for back-payments, it might be useful for those who are affected in the Borders and elsewhere to consider taking legal action through, say, a man or woman of straw. If that is successful, reimbursement might be payable through the councils' insurance cover, thus protecting public funds. That is just a thought.
I point out to Ms Curran that the level of payment for free personal care was not raised until this Government came to power.
On the Labour Party's amendment, I object to Margaret Curran saying that the Scottish National Party's tone is wrong—I read in the papers that she accuses us of "narrow-minded disputes". I find Labour's turnaround to be depressing but predictable. I feel sorry for the Labour Party in Scotland because it is not free; every time it tries to break free, it is pulled back. Margaret Curran stated in The Courier on 28 April that the Sutherland report
"raises vital issues for the future of free personal and nursing care for the elderly in Scotland. Labour fully accepts the conclusions of the report and its recommendations."
Her statement that
"Labour fully accepts the conclusions of the report and its recommendations"
was repeated in The Herald on 29 April.
So what was one of the recommendations? Recommendation 7 states:
"The UK Government should not have withdrawn the Attendance Allowance funding in respect of self-funding clients in care homes, currently amounting to £30 million a year. That funding should be reinstated in the short-term while longer-term work to re-assess funding streams takes place."
The cabinet secretary referred to that. Forgive me but, to me, that is plain English and in any court of law it would be case proved.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman):
Lab
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1902, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on free personal care.
The Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing (Nicola Sturgeon):
SNP
I welcome this opportunity for members to consider and explore more fully our response to the independent funding review of free personal and nursing care. T...
George Foulkes (Lothians) (Lab):
Lab
Will the member give way?
Nicola Sturgeon:
SNP
No. If Lord Foulkes cares to listen to me for now, I will take an intervention later.When Labour said two weeks ago that it accepted all Lord Sutherland's re...
George Foulkes:
Lab
Will the member give way?
Nicola Sturgeon:
SNP
I would be happy to hear Lord Foulkes's explanation of the U-turn.
George Foulkes:
Lab
First, I want to offer a little piece of advice. So far, the cabinet secretary is not being very clever in trying to convince us to accept anything that she ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Lab
I have not discussed the Barnett formula.Mr Foulkes, this is an intervention.
Nicola Sturgeon:
SNP
I say to Lord George Foulkes that whatever else the Barnett formula may or may not be intended to do, it is not intended to penalise and punish this Parliame...
George Foulkes:
Lab
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Nicola Sturgeon:
SNP
Lord George Foulkes has had sufficient time to intervene already.The second reason to pursue the issue relates to the point made last week by Ross Finnie. Th...
Margaret Curran (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab):
Lab
I will of course explain the substance behind our amendment in my speech. Does the cabinet secretary acknowledge that, in his report, Lord Sutherland recogni...
Nicola Sturgeon:
SNP
I hope that the later explanation of Labour's U-turn is better than that pathetic effort from Margaret Curran.The third reason to pursue the issue involves t...
Duncan McNeil (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab):
Lab
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Nicola Sturgeon:
SNP
I am in my last minute.I agree whole-heartedly with Labour's former First Minister Henry McLeish that the issue should not be a matter of petty rivalries. It...
Margaret Curran (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab):
Lab
I reiterate what the cabinet secretary said: this debate is indeed important and welcome. I also reiterate what was said last week. We thank Lord Sutherland ...
Nicola Sturgeon:
SNP
I accept the points that Margaret Curran makes. She is absolutely right and has correctly quoted Lord Sutherland. However, he also said that before we review...
Margaret Curran:
Lab
I was just about to address the issue of attendance allowance directly. To some extent, Nicola Sturgeon has made my case for me. In her fairly lengthy speech...
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP) rose—
SNP
Margaret Curran:
Lab
I ask Christine Grahame to let me make a point that I need to make.We accept and have argued consistently that the resources should come to Scotland, but I w...
Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Con
We welcome this debate on free personal and nursing care, which is often referred to as the flagship policy of the Scottish Parliament's first session. In mo...
Ross Finnie (West of Scotland) (LD):
LD
The position of the Liberal Democrats remains that one of the hallmarks of a civilised society is how it looks after its elderly. In common with many, we hav...
George Foulkes:
Lab
Will the member give way on that point?
Ross Finnie:
LD
I hope that this intervention will be considerably briefer than the member's earlier intervention. However, I am graciously pleased to allow him to intervene.
George Foulkes:
Lab
Ross Finnie will remember that the UK Government, of which I was a member at the time, made it absolutely clear that it could not make a specific grant to th...
Ross Finnie:
LD
I do not mind entirely accurate recollections but, with all due respect, that intervention was not entirely accurate. I do not think that the then Scottish E...
Dr Richard Simpson (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab):
Lab
That is a gross misinterpretation of the Wanless report, the point of which is the need for a broad and strategic review of the policy. Indeed, that is why t...
Ross Finnie:
LD
Ross Finnie might not have got it correct, but he knows that after setting out three possible models, including free personal care for the elderly and a part...
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I congratulate Ross Finnie on his thorough and logical analysis of the issue and support the Liberal Democrat amendment. As those who recall my question to t...
Margaret Curran:
Lab
Christine Grahame must appreciate the argument that I am making today. I am not saying that the attendance allowance issue should not be addressed. My issue ...